Kubez wrote:
Familiar with "Economics In One Lesson"?

No, but I think I can safely say I'm relatively familiar with economics,
at least up through the undergrad level.


... Arbitrary, non-market-driven
expenditure does NOT increase velocity.


Really? You'd think that any random added expenditure would have at
least a random chance of increasing velocity. And any increase in buying
adds to aggregate demand, at least incrementally.

In any event, as a historical average, federal spending adds money to
the national economy 7:1. Of course it goes up and down at the margins,
one possible reason why the Bush/Cheney super-spend-a-thon hasn't perked
up the economy is that we are already at the flattened top part of that
curve, which wouldn't be their fault. Another possible explanation,
which I tend to give more credit to, is that their added spending
(especially the Iraq war spending) is simply funneling money into the
coffers of politically favored interests that do not have many inputs to
the US national economy.

And why is state & local taxes part of the U.S. Treasury issue?

Kubez wrote:
Come back when you understand the concept of "unfunded mandates" and we
MAY let you back in our reindeer games....


Hmm... you mean like the 'No Child Left Behind' unfunded mandate? Or the
voting reform unfunded mandate? Various security & police unfunded
mandates? Maybe I don't understand the concept, please explain...


... currently more than 20% of the federal budget outlay is for
debt repayment... this level of debt is already painful, at what
point does it become crippling?


When the Asians refuse to purchase any more of it.


What we need to do is expand Social Security so the trust fund can buy
more Treasuries... oh wait, does that bring us back full circle?

Actually, getting back to the original subject: it has never been
explained why it would be better to increase the deficit in order to
take Social Security money out of Treasuries and put it into the stock
market... especially when it has never been so much as hinted that the
stocks chosen won't be selected on a political basis. How about a nice
block of Enron? The whole thing reeks of a kickback scheme.

President Bush keeps saying "it's your money" so instead of this complex
plan, why doesn't he simply let us keep more of it and do with it what
we think best?

As for the complaints about "no money" in the Social Security Trust
Fund, this is rather inconsistent with the publicly stated goal of
trying to achieve higher returns. Should the SSA bury the money in mason
jars in the back yard, so that there will actually be real money instead
of worthless pieces of paper? Maybe put it in Krugerrands? And why are
stocks not "worthless pieces of paper," they are not even an IOU.

So much to explain, so little attempt being made to make sense of it all.


Maybe at the
next stop, somebody good will get on


www.lp.org

As I've said, I don't see the Libertarian Party as a viable alternative.
We have a number of Libertarians on local bodies, they seem fairly
rational & sensible until they start talking about abolishing public
schools & putting toll booths on local roads. Whose idea of "progress"
is that?

Regards
Doug King